[lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 10:33:34 -0700
No, no, no. That's not true. I wrote "on the prospect of world peace" as a
challenge to the pacifists. You're at a disadvantage here because you don't
read my notes. You are guilty of the same thing Irene is. She doesn't read
my notes either. She imagines something and assumes her imagining to be
true and then criticizes me on the basis of it, usually in abusive terms.
But she hasn't imagined correctly and neither have you. I asserted that
pacifists had no plan for the achieving of world peace. All they had, I
asserted, was wishful thinking. Whereas, I argued, the Fukuyama/Barnett
approach will (if they are correct) lead to World Peace. I asked them if it
were assumed that the Fukuyama/Barnett approach were accurate, that is that
it would lead to world peace, shouldn't they give up their pacifism and
embrace this approach. There might be the occasional megalomaniacal
dictator that would have to be fought but in the long run world peace would
be achieved. Whereas their griping, harping, whining approach is only
likely to make things worse -- and I gave examples.
Your "bomb the heathen until they either submit or get wiped out" is
preposterously silly. No one has ever proposed that. No one proposes it
now. Read Barnett who is more of an activist that Fukuyama. He proposes
economic inducements, raising the standard of living, wooing them into the
integrated core.
The actual process? Don't forget that Fukuyama is an Hegelian. He thinks
the process deterministically inevitable. Barnett on the other hand has
described steps that can be taken. Assuming I found any converts, pacifists
who wanted to convert from pacifism to the Fukuyama/Barnett process, I was
going to recommend that they read his book which is entitled The Pentagon's
New Map, War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century. 2004.
As to your worry, "Lawrence, you don't want a world without injustice. In
that future of your world peace, will there be gay marriage? Will there be
socialized medicine? Will there be a redistribution of wealth? A globalized
multiracial society? Is this really what you want?" The functioning core is
composed of Liberal Democracies. "Liberal" implies freedom. The nations
will be free to vote anything into law they want and their constitutions
allow. That isn't going to change. The key words are Liberal and
Democracy. The idea is that economies are so free that entrepreneurs create
new wealth, jobs, etc. Standards of living are therefore on the rise.
Freedom is maximized so everyone can have most of what he wants. Take the
present day Liberal Democracies in the West, Japan, etc and assume they'll
get richer and freer. As soon as any state cracks down too much then
someone megalomaniac's megalothymos will be inhibited and he will revolt and
start history all over again. Freedom, as much freedom as possible, needs
to be available to such people to make them want to function within their
Liberal Democratic nations.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:38 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
The problem isn't me or my logic. You're the one on trial here; you're the
one whose
thoughts are being inspected. The problem is that you use lofty goals as
your justification
without stating how you will achieve those goals.
In your previous email, you expect that world peace will come about as "core
nations" (we
can guess the racial and religious nature of those core nations) adopt
liberal democracy,
and thus world peace will come about. Until then, we have to bomb the
heathen until they
either submit or get wiped out. This is how you will create "peace". You
use the goal of
peace only as a justification for more war.
Okay, so you finally destroy everyone and declare peace. But will you be
happy in that new
Eden? No more injustice?
Lawrence, you don't want a world without injustice. In that future of your
world peace, will
there be gay marriage? Will there be socialized medicine? Will there be a
redistribution of
wealth? A globalized multiracial society? Is this really what you want?
It would help if you stated clearly:
1) How you will establish world peace. And once established, how will it be
maintained/enforced?
2) What that peaceful society will look like.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
Other related posts:
